Arguments against LaRon Landry

by Skin Patrol on Apr 25, 2007 1:10 PM EDT in Analysis Comment 3 comments

Given how many reader(s) at Hogs Haven have expressed an interest in Landry, and even I find myself warming to the idea, I was surprised to read this over at the Fanhouse, complements of Football Outsiders Ryan Wilson:

Ideally, the Redskins would be able to trade out of the No. 6 pick, and it looks like the Dolphins might be a willing partner. The only question is who Washington selects with their first-round pick (and dear Lord, please don't let it be this guy).

Where "this guy" links to an FO piece where the peanut gallery provides a bevy of arguments against Landry to Washington.

Before I provide those arguments, let me say that FO's peanut gallery is also one of the most hyper informed groups of non-casual Football fans I've found on the internet. I don't think that means they're all perfectly versed in Redskins related football, but as far as commenters go they know as much as anyone about the game. I've found myself disagreeing with them on a number of occasions only to be won over to the competing case by well articulated arguments. Disagree with them at your own risk (and in this instance I do disagree with them). Here are a few of the better ones.

Per user Joe T.:

If their interest in Landry is authentic, then its a bad move. Taylor as FS can improve the performance of a mediocre SS (see Ryan Clark), but I doubt he would have as positive an effect on a high-calibre SS like Landry. There are diminishing returns in stacking talent in the secondary, much like their are diminishing returns in stacking WRs Millen-style. I think there would be more positive gain by investing the pick in the pass rush. Pass rush will take the heat off the secondary more than dense pass coverage will assist the pass rush.

Per user SJM:

There are some great quotes in the article by scouts from other teams (summarized here):

"Sure, Landry is a great player, but can he improve their defensive line, which is a much bigger need? No."

"Sure Landry is a great player, but will he make a good partner for Sean Taylor? No."

Now let me tell you, I'm no scout and those sentiments were obvious to me as well. I agree with those posters who said the Skins are throwing up a smokescreen. It's so absurd, the only reason any other team might take it seriously is that Washington has a rep for making dumb moves. The Skins want a d-lineman, but if they make it too obvious then their trading possibilities are reduced. What they really want is to trade down. I guarantee that they either draft a DL or trade down. (If they take Landry or trade up, I'm abandoning them and becoming an Eagles fan. I can only take so much mismanagement.)

The rest of the arguments weren't specific to Landry, but rather that the 'Skins are foolish to ignore their D-Line needs. I'm sympathetic to that argument.

What I would disagree with Joe T. on is that Landry is somehow harmed by the presence of Taylor. We've talked about the opposite being true, that Sean might be asked to bring the younger player along developmentally, but I don't know if I buy the general argument that players such as Landry and Taylor are best in small doses. Big hitting guys (who happen to be decent in coverage) cause dropped passes and fumbles, and no defense ever complains about generating either. Referring back to the original Post article:

I know for us, say, we wouldn't want to play two Ed Reed types or [Troy] Polamalu types together."

I just don't buy that. I would love to have two Ed Reeds or two Troy Polamalus.

Responding to user SJM, I wouldn't necessarily grant that Landry is a poor fit for Taylor (though I won't categorically deny it either), and I certainly won't argue that Landry makes the line better. His concerns on Landry are legitimate and deserve addressing, hopefully by one of my non-existant reader(s).

I want to focus on the smokescreen point for a moment, though. While I don't think taking Landry is "absurd", I think it's a stretch given that our needs are on the D-Line first and secondary second. And our dearth of Day One picks could be amelerioated by a trade down (which I still espouse as the best of all possibilities). I don't know if I would classify this as smokescreen, as I am sure there are some scouts and positional coaches on the Redskins who really do covet Landry, but allowing loose lips to talk up interest in LaRon certainly won't hurt our chances of trading out of #6, perhaps by trading with the Falcons for the #8 pick.

Reader(s), defend your LaRon Landry.

0 recs | Comment 3 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I believe I hit on that...

yesterday.

I think the problem with having two ball hawking DBs is that they'll both be in the same spot, because their instincts will lead them there. On a sweep or a toss, the team would end up with both safeties flying up, trying to make a play. That leaves them vulnerable to trick plays or even a well-timed cutback.

All I'm saying is that it works better to have a Taylor-type, running all over and making plays, and then have a more coverage-savvy guy behind him to allow him to run around and make those plays. That is why Clark worked so well alongside Taylor: he let him do his thing will still making sure the rest of the field was covered.

I'm not saying it can't work... I'm just saying it'd be like playing with fire every down of every game.

by TexSkins on Apr 25, 2007 2:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Now I'm on the defensive!

Only because you make an excellent and intuitive point that would seem to contradict completely what I said about having two Sean Taylors. Let me explain:

I don't disagree with this at all, but when I say I'd like two Sean Taylors on a team it's because Sean Taylor is such an outstanding player, that any team would be blessed to have two of him. Frankly I don't think Taylor is all that bad in coverage, though I could be convinced otherwise.

The conventional wisdom on Ryan Clark was that he was a better coverage guy, Taylor was the big hitting playmaker (who was also good at the line? Against the run? Right?). I think what has driven this perception more than anything is simply that Sean Taylor is a meast and destroys opponents, and it lends itself to a narrative. We also have to account for why Taylor suffered with Archuleta but thrived with Clark, and it's easy to assign some value to Clark as an oustanding coverage guy. Really, I think that Clark was good at reading offenses and gave Sean Taylor pre-snap reads that he wouldn't have gotten from Archuleta, and thus allowed him to better distinguish runs from passes from play fakes, etc. That's speculation.

What I don't think is speculation is that the popular narrative of Ryan Clark as outstanding coverage guy is largely a myth. For example, consider Ryan Clark's statistics while coexisting with Sean Taylor:

2004 - 81 tackles 0 interceptions, 1 pass defensed
2005 - 57 tackles 3 interceptions, 2 passes defensed

Vs. Sean Taylor:

2004 - 76 tackles, 4 interceptions, 9 passes defensed
2005 - 70 tackles, 2 interceptions, 10 passes defensed

Let me note that DB stats are misleading, as the best DB would accumulate very few of them as the opposing QB would voluntarily choose never to pass their way. I don't think this applies as significantly to Safeties, as pre-snap it's undetermined who they will be covering, and thus difficult for QBs to "avoid" them with the pass.

What we see from above is that Ryan Clark doesn't do a lot of intercepting passes, doesn't deflect many of them either and, statistically, appears to be a run supporting safety. Everything indicates that Sean Taylor is simply better in coverage than Clark and, given the reports, Landry sounds like he will be too. All things equal I'd take the best big-hitting Safety in the league combined with the best-coverage Safety, but all things aren't equal. If I had to live with Sean Taylor and Sean Taylor or else Sean Taylor and Ryan Clark, I'd take two Measts in a heart beat. If the scoop on Landry is that he's a Sean Taylor type player, I might be inclined to say...

Gimme gimme gimme.

But really I want us to trade down and draft D-Line.

Go Register. Or else.

by Skin Patrol on Apr 25, 2007 3:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

on the trading down part.

Those stats tell me what you started by saying: that Clark make his pre-snap reads and then put Taylor in a position to make the plays, while he then served as the "last line of defense" and just made a few plays here and there.

I think from his time with AA, Fox, Voncent, etc. it's obvious that Taylor needs a guy out there to put him in position pre-snap, so that after the ball is in the air, all hell can break loose.

If, and this is a big if, Landry can be the guy to police the secondary and get everyone in position and still be a big time player, a Meast Jr. if you will, then there is no reason to pass on him. My issue becomes if Landry, like Taylor, needs someone to get him in position... then the defense is in trouble. Unless, as I said in another post, that guy can be Fletcher... and then that's fine by me.

Bottom line is if the team decides Landry can compliment Taylor, then I'm all for it.

by TexSkins on Apr 25, 2007 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs